Regarding our little Wednesday column about James “Jim” Porter II, the new president of the National Rifle Association, reader Joe Sackett commented: “Mr. Grobaty does not consider the evidence when he makes decisions. The data are clear, more people own guns now and crime has gone down. The Press-Telegram might want to write for a more intelligent audience. “

Well, we will admit that the sole evidence we used when making our decision about Porter’s ability to lead his organization down a peaceful and reasoned path was the content of some of his recent remarks. These include his braying at a gun convention last year about the “War of Northern Aggression,” which we sometimes refer to as the Civil War, and his segue into his opinion that “one of our greatest charges that we have today is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm so … when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it. “

Tyranny, in this sense, would have to be the U.S. government, unless, perhaps, the government contracted out the job of tyranny. And “the standard military firearm” would go a bit more advanced than your basic hunting rifle and shotgun. There’s a host of “standard military firearms” in the government’s arsenal, but at minimum Porter would be referring to an M16A2, carried by just about every soldier in a combat zone, with a 30-round magazine and capability of shooting up to 90 rounds per minute. This quest of Porter’s would be a great boon for the already bloated gun industry which is really the only thing the NRA is interested in these days.

As for Sackett’s submitted data that speaks for itself, he’s referring to the new report from the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics which showed that the number of gun homicides has fallen from 18,253 to a perfectly respectable 11,101 from 1993 to 2011, while gun ownership has grown.

Ergo…. What? Is there a logician in the house?

Only an NRA spokesman would believe that more guns means fewer gun homicides, or the fact that “only” 11,101 people were killed by guns in 2011 means there’s no need for any kind of gun regulation. It’s still a staggering and unforgivable number and it far outpaces the gun homicide rate in most wealthy nations.

Further, it would appear that the rising number of guns sold in America are being sold to people with guns, with sales spiking every time any sort of gun regulation is advanced by the Obama administration. These would be your so-called gun nuts who believe that there is a “gun-grab” in the works, as if regulating, say, the magazine capacity of weapons will necessarily lead to the eventual door-to-door confiscation of all weapons.

Here’s what’s up: Gunshot wounds, which have continued to increase annually over the years, with 32,419 in 2010. And gun-related suicides, which increase dramatically with the easy availability of firearms. About 18,000 people die each year in America in gun suicides.

Here’s what’s down: Household gun ownership. According to the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey, household gun ownership has fallen from 43 percent in the 1990s to 35 percent in the 2000s.

So, not everything is fine and, with Porter’s shaky hand at the NRA tiller, we’ll be lucky if things don’t get a lot worse.